I feel that the moderation here is... subpar.
The perfect example of this: the chat thread, which was locked just yesterday.
There was no reason to lock it- it violated none of the rules. The closest thing to a violation? Some of the replies were 'spammy'- occasional one-word posts.
I see no reason to lock a thread because of spammy replies- it is not affecting the forum in any way. If you don't like the replies, you have the choice to ignore the topic. There are some of us who rely on this small community within a community for moral support.
I have PM'd Citricsquid about this, and several of the other members of the chat thread have PM'd Ez, the administrator who locked the thread. Although I had a brief correspondence with citric, he has not replied to my latest question.
This question was: "What makes the chat thread so horrible and dangerous that it needs to be locked? What rules does it violate?" I still don't have an answer to this question.
When she locked the thread, Ez said: "Just in to say, enough. Please do not use the forums for chatting anymore. Thank you. *Closed*" She also locked the "Official Furry Thread" for absolutely no reason- it was merely a place for people sharing common interests to talk- like the chat thread. This, after all, is what offtopic is for- stuff not relating to Minecraft.
I don't believe this is a legitimate reason to close the thread, and while the rules do say the administrator's words are final, this is an unfair decision. There was no warning, no discussion among admins. Although I have heard that they had talked about locking the thread before, I had no idea Ez would just go and lock it without any warning to us.
The aim of this subforum is to provide people a place to talk, so WHY is it that a chat thread to talk in is locked?
I am looking for a real reason to lock the thread. If there is no good reason, I request an unlock, as it hasn't done any harm to anyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've always been this way. A patched-up, crazy matryoshka.
Please do not use the forums for chatting anymore. Thank you.
*Closed*
I'd like to ask, in the politest terms I can think of, for your reasoning behind closing the chat thread.
Thanks for your message. Let me quote myself from another answer on the same subject:
We already have meaningless spam all over the place, we do not need a thread saying it is ok. This only encourages something we want to get rid of. Hope this helps you understand my reasons for closing the thread.
If you have further questions don't hesitate to ask.
Best,
ez
I'm just gonna leave ez's reply to my PM right here.
It's not spam- spam tends to be in other threads. This is contained in a thread, and if you dislike it, you don't have to stay in the thread. It has no affect on the outside forums aside from the post count- but, as many have said, post count is irrelevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've always been this way. A patched-up, crazy matryoshka.
Everybody that hate the removal of the Chat or Furry thread! Remodel your avatars so it would say "Bring back the Chat(or Furry, you choose) thread!"
I'm off to do that!
Does my avatar count?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Off Topic is so troll-free and friendly! I love it!
Everybody that hate the removal of the Chat or Furry thread! Remodel your avatars so it would say "Bring back the Chat(or Furry, you choose) thread!"
I'm off to do that!
Everybody that hate the removal of the Chat or Furry thread! Remodel your avatars so it would say "Bring back the Chat(or Furry, you choose) thread!"
I'm off to do that!
A few of us already have n-n
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do not wallow do not stall
Time waits for none at all
Your allowance may crawl,
It may fly or even vanish
But none will seem more lavished
Than time lost to all.
Chat was locked because the topic vs. posts in OffTopic was too imbalanced for their tastes.
Homophobic language is wrong even when you cross it out.
Reported.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This bit you are reading now is my signature. It's a block of text that's added to everything I post. So long as it fits within the 255 character limit of course. I think that means spaces too but I'm not really sure.
All it's going to do is hurt the community around here. If that was ez's objective, than I congratulate her. Well done.
So yes, I agree, poorly made, unfair decision. I would've at least warranted a warning to the forum goers. I wouldn't being expressing my discontent for the closure of the threads if they posted a reason for doing so. But nope, wake up, thread's locked. Cool story. Bro.
Citric, not to bother you or anything, but it seems as if ez's recent actions have ruffled up the forum-goers of Off-Topic.
Something needs to be done, and fast.
Sincerely, A Concerned Citizen.
My PM to Citric., entitled "From: A Concerned Citizen."
Props to whom gets the reference first.
The perfect example of this: the chat thread, which was locked just yesterday.
There was no reason to lock it- it violated none of the rules. The closest thing to a violation? Some of the replies were 'spammy'- occasional one-word posts.
I see no reason to lock a thread because of spammy replies- it is not affecting the forum in any way. If you don't like the replies, you have the choice to ignore the topic. There are some of us who rely on this small community within a community for moral support.
I have PM'd Citricsquid about this, and several of the other members of the chat thread have PM'd Ez, the administrator who locked the thread. Although I had a brief correspondence with citric, he has not replied to my latest question.
This question was: "What makes the chat thread so horrible and dangerous that it needs to be locked? What rules does it violate?" I still don't have an answer to this question.
When she locked the thread, Ez said: "Just in to say, enough. Please do not use the forums for chatting anymore. Thank you. *Closed*" She also locked the "Official Furry Thread" for absolutely no reason- it was merely a place for people sharing common interests to talk- like the chat thread. This, after all, is what offtopic is for- stuff not relating to Minecraft.
I don't believe this is a legitimate reason to close the thread, and while the rules do say the administrator's words are final, this is an unfair decision. There was no warning, no discussion among admins. Although I have heard that they had talked about locking the thread before, I had no idea Ez would just go and lock it without any warning to us.
The aim of this subforum is to provide people a place to talk, so WHY is it that a chat thread to talk in is locked?
I am looking for a real reason to lock the thread. If there is no good reason, I request an unlock, as it hasn't done any harm to anyone.
Tons of regulars that come here.
faggotsnothing.Chat was locked because the topic vs. posts in OffTopic was too imbalanced for their tastes.
[Mod Edit: Warning Issued for Flaming.]
I stopped going to the Chat thread after a while. Removal of the Chat thread, however, has caused the entire rest of Off-Topic to die. That sucks.
As if post count is a good reason.
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
I'm just gonna leave ez's reply to my PM right here.
Does my avatar count?
Mine has a rainbow on it. So it definetly counts.
A few of us already have n-n
Do not wallow do not stall
Time waits for none at all
Your allowance may crawl,
It may fly or even vanish
But none will seem more lavished
Than time lost to all.
Homophobic language is wrong even when you cross it out.
Reported.
So yes, I agree, poorly made, unfair decision. I would've at least warranted a warning to the forum goers. I wouldn't being expressing my discontent for the closure of the threads if they posted a reason for doing so. But nope, wake up, thread's locked. Cool story. Bro.
Hell yea bro
I use the word faggot all the time and have plenty of gay and bi friends.
I insult anyone about anything in any way I can.
It's how I great people.
Don't say faggots I've gotten warned for that because even though it is the correct term it is still hateful.
My PM to Citric., entitled "From: A Concerned Citizen."
Props to whom gets the reference first.